Possible newly discovered T205 variation

[asoriano]

In my opinion, the Doc White "quotes" and "no quotes" shouldn't really command much of a premium.

I know of three other T205's in the set that exhibit the same type of "error". These examples range from missing quotation marks to no parenthesis added in the text. I've taken these into account, but I never thought they would demand much of a premium or become recognized as new variations.

As far as the Mathewson Cycle "variation", that card is found with only one back. It shouldn't be added to the Master Set until a "37-1" example surfaces on a different advertising back OR with the correct stats listed on the Cycle back. Just my two cents.

Nice find, nonetheless.

Edited to add: Josh, there is a HLC Bates on eBay right now.

[marcdelpercio]

Turner,
Would you mind sharing the other three variations that you have discovered? Regardless of anybody else's opinion, I DO consider these cards variations and would like to add them to my collection.

To those who insist that both versions of a variation must appear with the same back in order to legitimately be considered a "variation", could you tell me what cards in the T205 set you consider to be true variations? On the vast majority of the T205 variations I am aware of, both versions DO NOT appear with the same back. Some appear with more than one back, but those backs are still exclusive to their respective variations. If we checklist the set in that way, it will be 10-15 cards smaller than what is currently recognized.

To reiterate my feelings on the Doc White "variation", I do not believe that either version will be extremely valuable as both seem to be relatively easy to find. However, I do believe that there will eventually be a modest premium attached to the "no quotes" version as I believe that most collectors (at least set completists like myself) will feel that this is a legitimate variation and, by Joshua's research and tracking numbers, this version appears to be about twice as scarce as the "quotes" version.

[asoriano]

Originally Posted by marcdelpercio

Turner,
Would you mind sharing the other three variations that you have discovered?

Hi Marc,

I can tell you two of the three:

Edward Barger: No parenthesis around "Cy" in first line of bio (I've only seen it on the Partial "B" variation, not the Full "B")

"Germany" Schaefer: no quotes around Germany

[Eggoman]

Originally Posted by asoriano

Hi Marc,

I can tell you two of the three:

Edward Barger: No parenthesis around "Cy" in first line of bio (I've only seen it on the Partial "B" variation, not the Full "B")

"Germany" Schaefer: no quotes around Germany

I have been looking for these 2 back variations to include in my own "Master Set" - (whatever THAT means!)

Although my search has admittedly NOT been exhaustive, I have NOT seen these variations either... Are they specific to a particular brand of cigarettes???

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Eggoman

I have been looking for these 2 back variations to include in my own "Master Set" - (whatever THAT means!)

Although my search has admittedly NOT been exhaustive, I have NOT seen these variations either... Are they specific to a particular brand of cigarettes???

Sounds like scrubbing with a good eraser might net you the variations. (j/k)...Good luck in the hunt. As we always say, the hunt is a lot of the fun.

[marcdelpercio]

I have never seen either of these variations either, and I have been searching pretty intensively since they were first mentioned several years ago. Maybe Leon's eraser suggestion is the best way to go

[Eggoman]

Originally Posted by Leon

Sounds like scrubbing with a good eraser might net you the variations. (j/k)...Good luck in the hunt. As we always say, the hunt is a lot of the fun.

Thanks, Leon!

One can always count on you as the Voice of Reason!!!

[Eggoman]

Originally Posted by Leon

Sounds like scrubbing with a good eraser might net you the variations. (j/k)...Good luck in the hunt. As we always say, the hunt is a lot of the fun.

Thanks, Leon!

One can always count on you as the Voice of Reason!!!

[Matt]

Originally Posted by asoriano

As far as the Mathewson Cycle "variation", that card is found with only one back. It shouldn't be added to the Master Set until a "37-1" example surfaces on a different advertising back OR with the correct stats listed on the Cycle back. Just my two cents.

So, the O'Hara and Demmitt St Louis variations don't count towards a T206 set because they are only found with PB backs?

[marcdelpercio]

Thanks Turner,
Guess I will keep searching for that third one

[Tcards-Please]

Originally Posted by Matt

So, the O'Hara and Demmitt St Louis variations don't count towards a T206 set because they are only found with PB backs?

I guess there seems to be a double standard regarding this issue. Not quite sure why there seems to be one standard for the T206 PB variations, but a similar variation with the T205's brings a totally different response. I'm trying to figure the reasoning, could someone please explain? Don't want to beat a dead horse with this one, but would like to understand the thought process for the difference.

r/
Frank

[Matt]

Originally Posted by T's please

I guess there seems to be a double standard regarding this issue. Not quite sure why there seems to be one standard for the T206 PB variations, but a similar variation with the T205's brings a totally different response. I'm trying to figure the reasoning, could someone please explain? Don't want to beat a dead horse with this one, but would like to understand the thought process for the difference.

r/
Frank

Frank - by the existing and established hobby definitions, the White, Matty, O'Hara and Demitt are all variations and should be check-listed as part of a master set. Some here perhaps are arguing theoretically if there was no already long standing defined standards. I don't see why an error being caught in between back print runs (instead of mid back run) or being on the back and not the front should make a difference, even in theory, but we're all entitled to our opinions.

[marcdelpercio]

Frank,
I don't think that there is any logical way a person can claim that the Demmitt and O'Hara are variations but the Doc White is not.

I understand the argument that in a true "master set" which is comprised of every possible front/back combination of every card in the set, you could checklist these simply as the Polar Bear backed Demmitt, O'Hara, and White. If you checklist these sets in this way, they will of course contain thousands of cards.

However, the vast majority of collectors checklist the set by the front and/or back design regardless of the ad brand. In this case, any variation in these designs (which are intended to be the same regardless of the brand) will be considered a listed variation. By that standard, Demmitt, O'Hara and White must all be considered true variations.

When somebody says, "I have a complete set of T205's", I don't think anybody would take that to mean that they have every possible front/back combination of every card in the set. What that person means is that he/she has one of every front/back DESIGN in the set. By definition, this would have to include the Doc White, Matty, and any other such variations.